Mind you, climate impact is only one part of a lifecycle analysis. There are other categories like eutrophication, health-affecting emissions, resource extraction, water use, disposal toxic byproducts, acidification, etc.

If you look at the studies cited, you’ll see that they stack disposable plastic bags up against those as well. The latter still requires hundreds of uses. Unfortunately, I couldn’t go too in-depth on that because, well, word limits gotta word limit y’all.

Correction. I actually cited multiple lifecycle analysis. And I’d imagine few people intentionally dump cotton bags. Rather, they tend not to get used — as per the conclusions of multiple surveys you’ve seen fit to disregard for...reasons?

Absolutely. I know I come off as ranty, but if I do, it’s because the lady I mentioned above taught me something important. We’ve cultured the mindset that we grow things just for them to look a certain way. There’s a whole nother half of gardening we forget about: learning about what we grow, and what comes to it.…

Lawns do support some animals, but only a few species: Skunks eat lawn grubs (but lawns can’t support enough prey for skunk’s main predator, owls). Geese can eat grass, and have no fear of being snuck up on when it’s so short. So long as cottontails have a thicket or deck nearby, in or under which they can den,…

Well, that’s only half the point. Yes, the chemicals and water usage are problematic, but so is the crap ecological diversity of lawns. They support very few species: skunks, geese, cottontail rabbits, and robins, but not much else. It’s an easy fix, even if you want most of your yard to be lawn, to just border it…

Yeah, Arthur Jones is going to lose...but let’s not pretend people ain’t gonna vote for him. Plus, the man has led a Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist faction within Chicago for decades, and approximately how many of my fellow Chicagoans have heard of him before this?

I have a lot of restraint. I’ve spoken cordially to White Supremacists. But if I ever meet this man, Imma slap shit out of him so hard he thinks he went on one of Oprah’s cleanses, just on general goddamn principle.

No, I understand that the ruling applies only to government censorship. However, it seems unlikely that the web, and particularly social media—which are increasingly acknowledged as public squares—will forever stay a wild west where companies allowed to censor as they see fit.

I disagree. The logic of “They deserve____” can be twisted to some serious cruelty. Instead, let’s ask what a certain penalty can accomplish, what it can build, what quantifiable, concrete benefits it can come with. Detestable or not, those boys are still someone’s family. I’d much rather one day see a success story…